coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 1965, respectively, and they are both serving prison sentences. The facts common to these cases are that the applicants were arrested and placed in custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, and during their police custody they had no right to legal assistance. Their statements taken during this period were subsequently used for their conviction by the trial courts.
5.  The details concerning the applications are indicated in the table below.

Application no. and case name
Date of police custody
Date of interrogation by the police 
Date of interrogation by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge 
Date of first instance court judgment and Court of Cassation decision
8747/02
Geçgel v. Turkey
6.  In the case of Mr Geçgel (no. 8747/02), the domestic courts constantly extended his detention using identical, stereotyped terms, such as “having regard to the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence”.
4.  The applicants were born in 1951, 1950, 1964 and 1962 respectively. The first three applicants live in Turkey and the fourth applicant lives in France.
5.  The application concerns a dispute between the applicants and a third party over ownership of plots of land in the province of Adıyaman.
6.  On 21 February 1980 the applicants brought an action before the Kahta Civil Court of First Instance for prohibition of the third party's unlawful occupation of their land. On 16 April 1997 the civil court issued a decision of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (görevsizlik kararı) and sent the case file to the Kahta Cadastral Court.
7.  In the meantime, on 8 April 1997 the third party brought a counter action against the applicants before the Kahta Cadastral Court and requested registration of the plots of land in his name.
8.  On 14 April 1997 the General Directorate of Forests in Turkey (“the Directorate”) also brought an action before the same court and requested that one of the plots owned by one of the applicants should be designated as forest and registered as property of the Treasury. The Kahta court joined the cases on 2 September 1997.
9.  On 6 July 2000 the Kahta Cadastral Court ordered partial registration of the land in the names of the applicants. The applicants and the Directorate appealed. On 29 January 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, holding that all the land had to be registered in the name of the applicants and remitted the case to the Kahta Cadastral Court.
10.  On 17 April 2003 the Kahta Cadastral Court abided by the Court of Cassation's decision and ordered the registration of the land in the name of the applicants.
11.  On 15 December 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment and on 13 July 2004 it dismissed the third party's rectification request.
4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  On 31 October 2000 the applicant was taken into police custody in Diyarbakır on suspicion of membership of Hezbollah, an illegal armed organisation. In his police statement dated 9 November 2000, taken in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant accepted the charges against him.
6.  On 10 November 2000 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge. Before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant denied that he was a member of Hezbollah.
7.  On 30 November 2000 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment and accused the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation. He requested that the applicant be charged and sentenced pursuant to Article 168 of the Criminal Code. On 30 April 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the court had regard to his statement taken in the absence of a lawyer.
8.  On 30 April 2002 the applicant appealed. On 19 June 2002 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation lodged a written opinion, in which he submitted that the Court of Cassation should uphold the judgment of the State Security Court. This opinion was not served on the applicant or his representative. On 21 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
9.  On 8 July 2005 the applicant was released from prison.
3.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained in the Kocaeli F Type Prison pending the criminal proceedings against him.
4.  On 7 May 1997 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of being involved in the activities of an illegal organisation known as the DHKP-C (the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party).
5.  On 10 May 1997 he was brought before a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court who ordered his pre-trial detention.
6.  On 20 May 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and another person, charging them with attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.
7.  On 27 September 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to death.
8.  On 14 May 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court for further examination.
9.  On 25 December 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant for a second time on the same charge and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
10.  On 5 July 2004 the Court of Cassation once again quashed the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court.
11.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was subsequently resumed before the Istanbul Assize Court.
12.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.
13.  Throughout the proceedings, the first-instance courts examined the applicant's continued detention at the end of every hearing, either on their own motion or upon the applicant's request. Each time the courts ordered his continued detention having regard to the state of evidence and the content of the file.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the town of Chervonograd, Ukraine.
5.  On 10 November 2003 the Chervonograd Court ordered the State company Lvivvugilllya to pay the applicant 42,000[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the company's failure to provide him with an apartment.
6.  On 17 December 2003 the State Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.
7.  On 30 December 2005 the enforcement proceedings were terminated in accordance with the Law of Ukraine on Measures to ensure the Stable Operation of Fuel and Energy Sector Enterprises.
8.  The judgment given in the applicant's favour remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the city of Donetsk.
5. In October 1999 insolvency proceedings were instituted against the applicant's former employer, the State company Chervona Zirka (“the company”).
6.  On 8 August 2002 the Proletarsky District Court of Donetsk awarded the applicant 4,150.39 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments, to be paid by the company.
7.  On 9 October 2002 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court declared the company bankrupt.
8.  Since December 2002 liquidation proceedings have been pending.
9.  The decision in the applicant's favour was enforced in full in November 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in the city of Kyiv, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant is a former military serviceman. In October 2001 he was transferred to the reserve.
6.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Court of Gorlovka (“the court”) against the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Military Enlistment Office of Gorlovka (“the enlistment office”) claiming payment of a single-payment allowance due to him, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and 51 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for the court fees.
7.  While the proceedings were still pending, the enlistment office paid the allowance. Therefore, the applicant withdrew his claims regarding payment of the allowance and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
8.  On 24 April 2003 the court awarded the applicant UAH 51[1] in compensation for the court fees, to be paid by the enlistment office. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
9.  On an unspecified date the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Bailiffs' Service of Gorlovka (“the Bailiffs' Service”) initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
10.  On 15 July 2003 the Bailiffs' Service suspended enforcement proceedings since the court had not indicated the debtor's account in the enforcement writ.
11.  Later the enlistment office was closed down. The latter's debts were transferred to its successor, the Gorlovsky City Enlistment Office. On 4 May 2006 the court granted the applicant's request and changed the debtor in the enforcement proceedings. The applicant re-lodged the enforcement writ with the Bailiffs' Service.
12.  The judgment remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Starokostantiniv, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant is a former military serviceman. In November 1999 he was transferred to the reserve force.
6.  On 21 April 2000 the Starokostantiniv Court ordered military unit A-2502 to pay the applicant UAH 1,151.2[4][1] in compensation for uniform expenses.
7.  On 5 May 2000 the Starokostantiniv Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
8.  In December 2003 the Bailiff's Service informed the applicant that the military unit was unable to enforce the judgment of 21 April 2000 because it did not have the necessary funds.
9.  The judgment remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the city of Kharkiv.
5.  On 24 December 1997 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. He was charged with extortion of money from Mr Sh. and Mrs Shi.
6.  On an unspecified date Mr Sh. and Mrs Shi. lodged their civil claims. They claimed payment of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the applicant.
7.  On 16 February 1998 the applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond.
8.  On 2 September 1998 the applicant was also charged with causing damage to official documents while studying his case file.
9.  On 5 November 1998 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Kyivsky District Court of Kharkiv.
10.  On 28 May 2001 the court convicted the applicant of extortion and damaging official documents and sentenced him to a suspended term of five years' imprisonment. By the same judgment the court partly allowed the civil claims.
11.  On 21 January 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the part of the judgment concerning the applicant's conviction for damaging official documents and ruled that the proceedings in that respect should be terminated since there was insufficient evidence against the applicant.
12.  By the same ruling the Court of Appeal quashed the remainder of the judgment and remitted it for fresh consideration to the first‑instance court on the ground that the latter had failed to examine all the circumstances of the case.
13.  On 4 February 2003 the Kyivsky District Court of Kharkiv convicted the applicant of extortion and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment, suspended. By the same judgment the court partly allowed the civil claims lodged by Mr Sh. and Mrs Shi.
14.  On 22 May 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.
15.  On 2 December 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in cassation by the applicant.
16.  The hearings in the case were scheduled at intervals ranging between several days and two months. In the course of the proceedings two expert reports were obtained. This took about six months. On one occasion the applicant challenged a judge who was considering his case.
17.  On 18 April 1997 the Krasnokutsky Court awarded the applicant 23,943 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the applicant due to Mr Sh.'s failure to repay a debt he owed to the applicant. On an unspecified date the judgment was quashed by a higher court.
18.  In 2008 new criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. On 1 October 2008 he was arrested. He was remanded in custody.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and died on 10 September 2008.
5.  On 3 April 1994 the applicant had a work-related accident. Subsequently, he received the status of a partially disabled person.
6.  The applicant's former employer, the State company “Makeyivvugillya” (“the company”) paid the applicant a lump sum accident benefit and awarded him a monthly allowance for his disability.
7.  In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno‑gorodskoy Court of Makeyevka against the company and the State Insurance Fund for Industrial Accidents and Diseases (“the Fund”). He sought re-calculation of the above allowances and claimed compensation for losses sustained due to erroneous calculation.
8.  On 29 October 2003 the court found for the applicant and awarded him 42,970.19[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH), to be paid by the company, and UAH 12,485.76[2] to be paid by the Fund.
9.  On 25 February 2004 the Tsentralno-gorodskoy District Bailiffs' Service of Makeyevka instituted enforcement proceedings.
10.  On an unspecified date the Fund paid the applicant the full amount awarded under the judgment.
11.  In the period from 24 December 2004 to 26 July 2005 the company partly paid its debt. The judgment remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the city of Ivano‑Frankivsk, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant, a former military serviceman brought proceedings against military unit A-3339, where he had served before retirement, claiming compensation for his uniform. On 2 October 2003 the Ivano‑Frankivsk Court found for the applicant and awarded him 2,393.62[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH).
6.  On 13 November 2003 the Ivano-Frankivsk Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings.
7.  On an unspecified date the above military unit was liquidated and the judgment debt was transferred to its legal successor, military unit A-1807.
8.  Following this event the enforcement writ was transferred to the Yaremcha Bailiffs' Service. On 11 February 2008 the latter instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment.
9.  On 24 June 2008 the enforcement writ was returned to the applicant. The judgment has not been enforced due to the debtor's lack of funds.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Armyansk, Ukraine.
5.  On 6 November 2003 the Armyansk Court awarded the applicant 1,399.61 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears, to be paid by her former employer, the State company Sivashsky Anilinokrasochniy zavod (“the company”). On an unspecified date the judgment was enforced in full.
6.  On 20 February 2004 the same court awarded the applicant UAH 2,206.56[1] in compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the delay in payment of the salary. The judgment became final. On 24 March 2004 the State Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
7.  On 10 October 2006 the company was declared insolvent. The liquidation proceedings instituted against the company are still pending.
8.  The judgment of 20 February 2004 has not been enforced due to the company's lack of funds.
4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Zhytomyr, Ukraine. He has been recognised as falling within Category I disabled status (the gravest one) on account of his service during the Second World War.
5.  The applicant was an operative who dealt with the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. From 1997 he was on a special priority list of persons to be allocated an apartment by the State.
6.  On 31 August 2006 the Korolyovskyy District Court of Zhytomyr ordered Zhytomyr Town Council to provide the applicant with an apartment in accordance with the requirements of section 20 § 10 of the Chernobyl Victims' Status and Social Security Act (see paragraph 12 below). This decision became final. Enforcement proceedings were commenced on 28 September 2006.
7.  According to the Government, in February 2008 the bailiff requested from the Korolyovskyy District Court of Zhytomyr replacement of the in-kind award conferred by the decision of 31 August 2006 with an equivalent amount of money. On 8 July 2008 the court dismissed that request. The court's reasoning is unknown, as neither the party furnished a copy of that decision. The State Bailiffs' Service appealed and the proceedings are apparently still pending before the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal.
8.  Although the debtor was fined several times by the bailiffs, the decision of 31 August 2006 has not been enforced. On several occasions, in their replies to the relevant applicant's complaints, the State authorities gave explanations based on a lack of funds in the budget to purchase or construct new apartments and the lack of available apartments. The enforcement proceedings are still pending.
9.  According to the applicant, he lives in a rented house in poor living conditions (for example, without water supply). The local press described the house as “old” and “ramshackle”.
5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Turany. At the relevant time he was attached, as a soldier by profession, to the Military Academy in Liptovský Mikuláš.
6.  On 6 May 2002 the dean of the Faculty of Logistics at the above-mentioned military academy issued a disciplinary order with reference to sections 179(2) and 78(2) of the Military Service Act 1997. In it the applicant was found guilty of a disciplinary offence in that he had grossly offended another person in the context of administrative proceedings before the District Office in Martin. The decision stated that his action constituted a minor offence under section 49(1)(d) of the Minor Offences Act 1990.
7.  The decision stated that the case related to a disagreement between the applicant and his neighbours and that similar problems had occurred previously. With reference to section 81(c) of the Military Service Act 1997, the applicant was fined 1,500 Slovakian korunas (SKK), which was then the equivalent of approximately 37 euros (EUR). That sanction was considered appropriate in view of the danger for society of the applicant's action. With reference to Regulation 393/1990, the applicant was ordered to reimburse the costs of the proceedings.
8.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the decision in question was premature and arbitrary as it had been taken in disregard of the relevant facts.
9.  On 24 June 2002 the rector of the military academy dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision in issue. The rector's decision stated that it was final and that it could not be challenged by means of an ordinary remedy.
10.  On 27 August 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. He alleged that the decisions given by the military authorities were arbitrary and that his right to judicial protection had been violated as those decisions could not be reviewed by the courts. He relied, inter alia, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
11.  The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint for lack of jurisdiction on 11 December 2002. It referred to Article 144 and Article 46 § 2 of the Constitution and to its decision II. ÚS 50/01 and held that administrative decisions which had a bearing on fundamental rights and freedoms could not be excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts. The decision stated that the applicant alleged a violation of his right to judicial protection without having sought protection of his specific rights before an ordinary court. Had the applicant brought an action in an ordinary court, the latter would have been obliged to comply with the Constitution when dealing with it.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Şanlıurfa.
5.  In the cadastral survey carried out in 1964 some plots of land in Siverek village were registered in the names of the applicant and a number of other individuals. In 1971 an individual further donated his share of a plot in the same village to the applicant.
6.  On 28 August 1972 two villagers (O.T., H.Y.) instituted civil proceedings against another villager (M.E.) objecting to the cadastral registrations and claiming that they were the lawful owners of the land in question on the basis of a registration dating from before 1950. It appears that on unspecified dates during the course of the proceedings numerous villagers, including the applicant, became parties to the proceedings, which continued with three complainants, seventeen defendants and two intervening third parties. Both the claimants and defendants claimed to have title to the land in question.
7.  On 9 June 1983 the trial court requested the applicant's address to be determined so that he could be summoned before the court. On 20 March 1985 the trial court decided to publish the summons in a country-wide newspaper in an attempt to determine the applicant's whereabouts.
8.  On 18 November 1985 H.Y. submitted a letter to the trial court informing the judge of an agreement he had reached with the applicant and stating that the applicant would appear before the court to testify accordingly.
9.  The case file indicates that the applicant did not appear before the trial court until 22 March 2004, when he presented himself as one of the parties. On 22 November 2004 the applicant's representative submitted a power of attorney to the trial court.
10.  During the course of the proceedings the court held an on-site inspection on 23 June 1986. A number of expert reports were requested concerning the title registrations. Numerous witnesses were heard on various occasions. Some of the defendants transferred part of their shares to others on different dates.
11.  On 5 March 2007 the Siverek Cadastral Court delivered its judgment in favour of the applicant and the other defendants. It appears that the number of claimants and defendants had reached twenty-eight and eighty-one respectively by the time the judgment was delivered.
12.  The case is still pending before the Court of Cassation.